Wiki related questions Options

[MARS]

/insert detailed lore paragraph on how this was merely an early testbed vehicle for the final version

[Serialkillerwhal...]

/insert extended technobabble on why the final version is better, all in the form of a parody of Future Weapons.

[Admiral*Alex]

/insert detailed lore paragraph on how this was merely an early testbed vehicle for the final version

Thanks for the correction MARS.

[Omnius64]

Is there any lore reason of why the Eurofighter is never targeted & attacked ingame?
In RL, with a Mach speed of 1.5, if fast indeed, and in the future, newer models would be faster...But so are & much faster the Raptor and more. Mig bomber, A-10, and other support aircraft can be targeted. But not the Typhoon.

But how the Eurofighters would be invulnerable? Is the 2040s model using a Scramjet motor? What model is the one used to begin with, during the war?
If there is a reason, the wiki article should be edited.

[MARS]

Not everything needs to be explained because trying so only draws attention to inaccuracies. The planes that are called in via the airstrike ability from the tech airport cannot be targeted either. Suppose the way they swoop in from great heights, drop their payloads and pull right up again makes them hard to pick up and target or something.

[Omnius64]

Speaking of Jadmammuth.

There should be included these images to the wiki for the Jad mammuth article.

http://s180.photobucket.com/user/Teh_ROTR/...ntro-2.png.html
http://s180.photobucket.com/user/Teh_ROTR/...odyx-1.png.html
http://s180.photobucket.com/user/Teh_ROTR/...utro-1.png.html

Attached File(s)

 eujagdmammut.jpeg ( 184.22K ) Number of downloads: 2

 

[Svea Rike]

Holy crap, that's freaking awesome! Why aren't you making more of these info things for other units, SWR?

[Omnius64]

Holy crap, that's freaking awesome! Why aren't you making more of these info things for other units, SWR?

I asked myself the same question while reading this.
Doing this to all vehicles would be perhaps too much time consuming, indeed; But this data files thing should be used to many of the actual units, and the next ones to be released.

This post has been edited by Omnius64: 31 Aug 2014, 19:16

[Oliver]

You did this? That is actually pretty neat

[Omnius64]

You did this? That is actually pretty neat

I didnt maked this.
SWR did this before. And I found it here:
http://forums.swr-productions.com/index.ph...p;hl=Jagdmammut

[Oliver]

I think this is the right section to ask this... Wouldn't be nice to create a section on wiki with an render of the evolution of units (revamps and stuff)? Kinda like the one fo the Sentinel showed on the CBCPT interview of SWR.

Kinda like to show the evolution of the models throughout the mod

[Admiral*Alex]

I think this is the right section to ask this... Wouldn't be nice to create a section on wiki with an render of the evolution of units (revamps and stuff)? Kinda like the one fo the Sentinel showed on the CBCPT interview of SWR.

Kinda like to show the evolution of the models throughout the mod

I like it and it would insure that only current information/pictures are on the unit's page and it would clean a few on them up a little so the Trivia/Gallery isn't full of out dated models.

[Omnius64]

Theres already an article about USA & China upgrades.
Now someone need to do the rest of factions upgrades articles.

[MARS]

Brownie points for whoever comes up with a proper canon-summary of this article based on what is actually established. I don't know who put this here, but it's completely false, likely someone's personal non-canon interpretation based on the pre-SWR story premise.

[Graion Dilach]

It wasn't me, I nuked RPG Conscript instead! Tho the more I look at it, the more I feel I'll probably gonna rewire BMP too...

[teslashark]

So I might be wrong, but is Russia's shorthand RUS and China's shorthand CHN?

[MARS]

Right, although I personally tend to call it PRC instead of CHN which, when I think about it, might actually be redundant since the ROC no longer exists in the ROTR timeline. Works either way, really.

[teslashark]

Thanks, just saying there's quite a few PRC and RFs left in the wikia...

[Omnius64]

I have created my first article in a wiki.
Its about a resume of the Generals game concept for 2.0.

http://generalsrotr.wikia.com/wiki/Generals

This article need to be edited to a proper standart. (images,references,links,etc...)

[WarWolf_1]

Hey all,
Having put some solid time in on the wiki today I'm going to share an update with some changes (and questions).

Visiting the main page you'll notice it has been spruced up.
- The updates listing has been removed. An external link has been added under the appropriate section, linking to the news listing on ModDB. I've chosen ModDB as it keeps updates chronologically.
- In its place is now a poll! As exciting as that may not be, why not answer the question when passing by?
- I had the thought that the "Media" section could showcase newer content, which is why you'll see unit renders. We can include newer SWR released screenshots as well.
- There is also the addition of the "Popular Categories" section. We should make the images the same size eventually.

QUESTION: What would make for a proper image for the "mechanics" (game-play mechanics) category?

Speaking of which, we now have more fleshed out general categories (NOT in-game generals). Doing my best to follow the K.I.S.S. mindset (Keep It Simple Stupid ["Silly" if you're wanting to be nice]) I'm trying to keep as few categories as possible, focused on topics dealing with the game before (if ever) having fluff ones (think: IFVs, Super-heavy-ohmehgawd-tanks, etc.). The current exception I can think of may be "events". However the tree of sub-categories appears accurate and thus useful (if pushing the threshold for "amount of clicks needed to find something").
- Addition of said "Mechanics" category. It is for all game-play mechanic related articles.
- "Scrapped Content" is now "Archives". If something is scrapped or otherwise obsolete (and going to remain that way) add it to that category. We could make the template that is added to a scrapped page add said category.
- Lore now has "Minor factions" and "Technology".
- "Battles" are now under "Operations", because Wikipedia told me so. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operation ] All events are now under "Events".

QUESTION: Does anyone have any thoughts on a word or two to represent whether an aircraft has to return to an airfield or not?

QUESTION: Does anyone know of a word or two that includes "Ground attack" aircraft and "Bomber" aircraft under its meaning? Both refer to a different type of aircraft from my understanding.

I created two articles now under the "Technology" category. "Lasers" was "Point Defense Lasers", and now serves as a topic catcher for all material related to it. "Unmanned systems" will do the same job for all UGVs, UAVs, UCAVs and U[insert acronym(s) I may have missed here]s.

QUESTION: Do these types of pages seem like they'd be of worth to the wiki/ people reading it?

Please see the Guardian's comments section for a question on lore armament if you're interested (and have an opinion?).

The wiki navigation bar has been updated.

And finally. Please look at the Blackhawk and Interceptor. These show my thoughts on page layout.
- Blackhawk: showcases the use of the unit's Cameo with intro paragraph.
- Interceptor: showcases the framework of what could be all unit/structure pages' layout.

QUESTION: Would a combination of both points be acceptable for all units? Can quotes go in one location or is the common opinion that they should be scattered about?

@Omnius64: I've changed the layout of the page you made. What are your thoughts on it? Is it acceptable?

Cheers folks.

[Omnius64]

Hey all,
Having put some solid time in on the wiki today I'm going to share an update with some changes (and questions).

Visiting the main page you'll notice it has been spruced up.
- The updates listing has been removed. An external link has been added under the appropriate section, linking to the news listing on ModDB. I've chosen ModDB as it keeps updates chronologically.
- In its place is now a poll! As exciting as that may not be, why not answer the question when passing by?
- I had the thought that the "Media" section could showcase newer content, which is why you'll see unit renders. We can include newer SWR released screenshots as well.
- There is also the addition of the "Popular Categories" section. We should make the images the same size eventually.

QUESTION: What would make for a proper image for the "mechanics" (game-play mechanics) category?

Speaking of which, we now have more fleshed out general categories (NOT in-game generals). Doing my best to follow the K.I.S.S. mindset (Keep It Simple Stupid ["Silly" if you're wanting to be nice]) I'm trying to keep as few categories as possible, focused on topics dealing with the game before (if ever) having fluff ones (think: IFVs, Super-heavy-ohmehgawd-tanks, etc.). The current exception I can think of may be "events". However the tree of sub-categories appears accurate and thus useful (if pushing the threshold for "amount of clicks needed to find something").
- Addition of said "Mechanics" category. It is for all game-play mechanic related articles.
- "Scrapped Content" is now "Archives". If something is scrapped or otherwise obsolete (and going to remain that way) add it to that category. We could make the template that is added to a scrapped page add said category.
- Lore now has "Minor factions" and "Technology".
- "Battles" are now under "Operations", because Wikipedia told me so. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operation ] All events are now under "Events".

QUESTION: Does anyone have any thoughts on a word or two to represent whether an aircraft has to return to an airfield or not?

QUESTION: Does anyone know of a word or two that includes "Ground attack" aircraft and "Bomber" aircraft under its meaning? Both refer to a different type of aircraft from my understanding.

I created two articles now under the "Technology" category. "Lasers" was "Point Defense Lasers", and now serves as a topic catcher for all material related to it. "Unmanned systems" will do the same job for all UGVs, UAVs, UCAVs and U[insert acronym(s) I may have missed here]s.

QUESTION: Do these types of pages seem like they'd be of worth to the wiki/ people reading it?

Please see the Guardian's comments section for a question on lore armament if you're interested (and have an opinion?).

The wiki navigation bar has been updated.

And finally. Please look at the Blackhawk and Interceptor. These show my thoughts on page layout.
- Blackhawk: showcases the use of the unit's Cameo with intro paragraph.
- Interceptor: showcases the framework of what could be all unit/structure pages' layout.

QUESTION: Would a combination of both points be acceptable for all units? Can quotes go in one location or is the common opinion that they should be scattered about?

@Omnius64: I've changed the layout of the page you made. What are your thoughts on it? Is it acceptable?

Cheers folks.

I love all the changes you have maked!
We only need to complete the arsenal/upgrades list of all factions.

[Svea Rike]

I just made a page for Aldastan. Do you think it is any good?

[MARS]

^ Looks good.
Also, after some consideration, I feel inclined to drop the exact numbers from troop strength and casualty statistics from the infoboxes, mainly because these things tend to go way out of proportion and I cannot babysit every single article for believable numbers. In the future, unless exact numbers are provided, troop strength should be represented by listing a number of example organisations/armies or just a number of battalions, divisions, etc. whilst casualties, military and civilian, should only be marked in vague adjective terms, e.g. minimal, marginal, high, severe, heavy, catastrophic, total, etc. I would like to see this applied to all articles that have such infoboxes. Would be much appreciated.

[Svea Rike]

Right-e-o. Can I use the flag I made in my fan-fiction for the flag of Aldastan, or can you make a more professional one?

[MARS]

Feel free to work it in there for now, but mark it as your own.